Consensual Affair Gone Sour Not Rape: SC

It is really most extremely refreshing to see that while striking the right note, the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Amol Bhagwan Nehul vs State of Maharashtra and Anr in Criminal Appeal of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10044 of 2024] and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025 INSC 782 that was pronounced recently on May 26, 2025 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction has most rationally quashed rape charges against a man while holding clearly, cogently and convincingly that a consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State. We thus see that a Division Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice BV Nagarathna and Hon’ble Mr Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held so while allowing the appeal of Amol Bhagwan Nehul that had been filed against a Bombay High Court order which had dismissed the appellant’s petition that had sought the quashing of a criminal case that had been registered under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504 and 506 of the IPC. How can sex with consent in this modern world where women are getting best education and knows more than men be ever termed as rape?

It merits mentioning that all proceedings stemming from the FIR that was lodged in July 2023 were quashed by the top court. It was also directed by the top court that any bail bond that was furnished were also directed to be cancelled. Very rightly so!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Satish Chandra Sharma for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice BV Nagarathna and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “This Appeal by special leave is directed against the Impugned Order dt. 28.06.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Crl. W.P. No. 3181 of 2023 whereby the Petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking quashing of the Criminal Case C.R. No. 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 for offences punishable u/s 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter “IPC”) registered at Karad Taluka Police Station, Satara qua the Appellant was dismissed. Vide an amendment to the Petition, the Appellant also challenged the chargesheet filed on 26.09.2023 and the proceedings in RCC no. 378/2023 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 while elaborating on the facts of the case stating that, “The Criminal Case C.R. No. 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 at Police Station Karad Taluka, Dist. Satara was registered at the behest of a Complaint filed by the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 alleging that during the period 08.06.2022 till 08.07.2023, the Appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with her on the false assurance of marriage. The Complainant/Respondent no. 2 who had been previously married, had obtained Khulanama from her ex-husband and had been residing with her 4-year-old son at her parental home in Kalegaon, Karkad Dist since 2021; while the Appellant, a 23-year-old student of Bachelor of Science (Agriculture) at Krishna College of Agriculture, Rethre BK, Taluka Karad District, Satara was residing as a tenant next door, with three other men since 25.05.2022. The sequence of events as recorded in the FIR 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 are as under:

3.1 The parties became acquainted on 08.06.2022, which turned into a friendship and they soon began interacting more frequently. The relationship blossomed into love, but it is stated that the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 repeatedly denied to make physical relations with the Appellant.

3.2 It is alleged the case of the Complainant that in July 2022, the Appellant had entered the house of the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 at night, and said that once she obtains divorce from her husband, the Appellant would instantly marry her and on this pretext had sexual intercourse with her, despite her denial. It is stated that since then, the parties continued meeting outside and having meals together; however later on 21.09.2022 on the occasion of the Appellant’s birthday, when the Complainant/Respondent had visited the Rajyog Lounge, Varunji Phata, Airport Karad, the Appellant again had sexual intercourse with her on the assurance of marriage. Thereafter, the Appellant allegedly borrowed money from the Complainant/Respondent no.2 on various occasions & used her car, Hyundai Verna No. MH-12-HZ-9559 for his personal use.

3.3 In January 2023, the parties visited Pushkar Lodge, Ogalewadi, Karad, where the Appellant told the Complainant that he had not informed his family about their relationship, however, he would marry her once her divorce was finalized. Allegedly, despite her objection, the Appellant on this assurance of marriage, again had sexual intercourse with the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 and there is a specific allegation that he committed unnatural sex with her. It is alleged that soon thereafter, the Appellant had reduced his interactions with the Complainant/Respondent no. 2, did not answer her phone calls and left for his hometown at Ahmednagar.

3.4 On 08.07.2023, the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 visited his native village in Ahmednagar and met his parents and other relatives, who refused to marry the Appellant with Complainant/Respondent no. 2 as they belonged to different religions. Allegedly, when the Complainant refused to leave, the parents of the Appellant, his brother and his uncle pushed her aside by beating and abusing her. The Complaint dt. 31.07.2023 was registered after 23 days of the alleged incident at PS Taluka Karad, Dist. Satara.”

Quite significantly, the Bench propounds in para 8 propounding that, “Having heard both sides in this case and after carefully considering the material on record, the following attributes come to the fore:

(a) Even if the allegations in the FIR are taken as a true and correct depiction of circumstances, it does not appear from the record that the consent of the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 was obtained against her will and merely on an assurance to marry. The Appellant and the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 were acquainted since 08.06.2022, and she herself admits that they interacted frequently and fell in love. The Complainant/Respondent no. 2 engaged in a physical relationship alleging that the Appellant had done so without her consent, however she not only sustained her relationship for over 12 months, but continued to visit him in lodges on two separate occasions. The narrative of the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 does not corroborate with her conduct.

(b) The consent of the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 as defined under section 90 IPC also cannot be said to have been obtained under a misconception of fact. There is no material to substantiate “inducement or misrepresentation” on the part of the Appellant to secure consent for sexual relations without having any intention of fulfilling said promise. Investigation has also revealed that the Khulanama, was executed on 29.12.2022 which the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 had obtained from her ex-husband. During this time, the parties were already in a relationship and the alleged incident had already taken place. It is inconceivable that the Complainant had engaged in a physical relationship with the Appellant, on the assurance of marriage, while she was already married to someone else. Even otherwise, such promise to begin with was illegal and unenforceable qua the Appellant.

(c) There is no evidence of coercion or threat of injury to the Complainant/Respondent no. 2, to attract an offence under section 506 IPC. It is improbable that there was any threat caused to the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 by the Appellant when all along the relationship was cordial, and it was only when the Appellant graduated and left for his hometown to Ahmednagar, the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 became agitated. We also cannot ignore the conduct of the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 in visiting the native village of the Appellant without any intimation, which is also unacceptable and reflects the agitated and unnerved state of mind of the Complainant/Respondent no. 2. For the same reason, the criminal prosecution against the Appellant herein is probably with an underlying motive and disgruntled state of mind.

(d) There is also no reasonable possibility that the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 or any woman being married before and having a child of four years, would continue to be deceived by the Appellant or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship with an individual who has sexually assaulted and exploited her.”

Most significantly, most remarkably, most rationally and so also most forthrightly, the Bench encapsulates in para 9 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “In our considered view, this is also not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with. A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State. Such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence. This Court has time and again warned against the misuse of the provisions, and has termed it a folly (Naim Ahmed Vs State (NCT) of Delhi (2023) SCC Online SC 89) to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute a person for an offence under section 376 IPC.”

It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 11 that, “Taking into consideration that the Appellant is just 25 years of age, and has a lifetime ahead of him, it would be in the interest of justice that he does not suffer an impending trial and, therefore, the proceedings emanating from C.R. No. 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 are quashed at this stage itself.”      

Resultantly, the Bench then directs in para 12 holding that, “Consequently, the Appeal is allowed and the Impugned Order dt. 28.06.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Crl. W.P. No. 3181 of 2023 is set aside. Accordingly, C.R. No. 490/2023 dt. 31.07.2023 registered at Karad Taluka Police Station, Satara and proceedings emanating therefrom in RCC no. 378/2023 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad are quashed, and Appellant is discharged. Bail bonds, if any, also stand cancelled.”

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 13 that, “Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”

There can be just no gainsaying that it is high time and lawmakers must now definitely amend the rape laws and if a woman has sex with a men without force being used then it should not be termed rape because we are now living in 21st century and not in 17th or 18th century! Why should a woman promptly get ready to have sex with men without marriage and only on promise of marriage surrender her body willingly and later cry rape? This definitely merits prompt changes so that a woman whether married or unmarried stops having sex with men on any pretext whatsoever without marriage being consummated so that it acts as a strong deterrent to woman not to have sex with any men on any pretext whatsoever and also go a long way in checking misuse of rape laws against men by woman who for years has sex with men enjoying and later suddenly cry rape waking up after a long time and forwards promise of marriage as most favourite excuse for surrendering her body to him!

It merits just no reiteration that the earlier this is done, the better it shall be! This will definitely usher in morality and women will think thousands times before having sex with men without consummation of marriage and will definitely go a long way in nipping in the bud the most regressive practice of women surrendering her body on pretext of marriage for years and later terming it as rape! It definitely brooks no more delay anymore longer now! It will also go a long way in checking abuse of penal laws meant for safety of women but which in reality are used as potent weapons to extract money from men and to put him in trouble by sending him to jail if he refuses to extract money or toe her line as she wants! This is what I find most unsettling which cannot be ever justified under any circumstances!

In addition, if a woman files false complaints of rape and it is proved that she did it intentionally then definitely she must be jailed for at least few years and also made to pay huge compensation to men so that it acts as a strong deterrent against the growing nefarious tendency of exploiting women safety laws as potent dangerous tools to harass, humiliate and harangue men and extort huge money from them and if they don’t comply then make them suffer huge imprisonment in jail for just no fault of theirs! The buck must stop now on this count! It is definitely most deeply disappointing that even in new revised penal laws we see no such changes having been made but still these much desired compelling changes can be incorporated in new revised penal laws also if Parliament and law makers collectively take action on this count at the earliest! No denying it!